Food Stamp Abuse

So this time around, I want to talk about Government Welfare, and more specifically, the Food Stamp program.  Now-a-days, our American Politicians have invented new language to describe these programs...SNAP...LINK...WIC...etc, etc, but it all boils down to FOOD STAMPS.  Through and through, but now we're not supposed to use those 2 words, apparently because they have a "negative vibe" to them.  They have a negative vibe for a REASON.  They are bad for the country and they are bad for you!

Americans don't like honest language...if it makes us feel uncomfortable, we want a soft, fruity word to replace it.  If you've known me any amount of time, you're probably aware of how big of a Carlin fan I am, and I often reference his material to help better articulate a point I'm trying to make...after all..."Someone else has already said it best so if you can't top it, steal from them and go out strong" (See what I did there?  With that American History X quote?)

So there we have it...soft, fruity language.  FOOD STAMPS...not LINK...not SNAP...not WIC...we went from two syllables to one...now it's even easier to pronounce...it's just amazing.  Anyways...let's continue...

This conversation can rarely be had in a civil matter, as it usually devolves into a shouting match that is derived from hurt feelings and a defensive posture from someone who is either currently on, or once was on, food stamps...it can't be avoided, especially these days, when we realize that there are 46,496,788 people in the country, right now, currently collecting food stamps  (That number is according to the USDA in May 2012...I don't have any more recent figures than that, but the program is ever expanding, and when you consider that our President, Barack Hussein Obama (Mmm, Mmm, Mmm) is even handing out PRIZES to the State in the union that can get the most people signed up on Government Food Stamps. 

My mental image of you at this very moment after reading the above

I know, I did the same thing!  I couldn't believe it either, like I really couldn't believe it, I figured it was some ploy put forth by some right wing "News" machine that was manipulating some information...NOPE!

If you follow the link titled "PRIZES" above, you'll see that the State of Oregon is actually proud of this fact...so proud that they put it up on their website.  Someone should tell the State of Oregon that this is not now how you prevent someone from dying of Dysentery. 

As stated earlier, the USDA says that there are 46,496,788 individuals on Food Stamps.  In May of 2011, there were 45,410,683... that's a difference of 1,086,105 people in 12 months or a 2.3% increase in one year.  Holy Shit...That's 90,508 people a month, 20,866 people a week, 18,101 people a day, or 2.5 people every minute of every hour of every day...that get added to the Government Food Stamp program.  Think about that for a moment...2.5 people a minute, and growing.

Now, with those raw numbers, lets do some calculation...

Let's take the number of people that the USDA claims receive food stamps, 46,496,788 and cut it in half...we get 23,248,394.  Now, let's take the price of something simple that is food stamp eligible...we can pick from a variety of different "Foods" that food stamps can DIRECTLY purchase :

I know, I know, I know...some of you reading this probably scrolled down to the comments section to tell me how WRONG I AM because "You can't use food stamps at a Pizzeria"  ...but guess what?  You can.  In fact, until just a few months ago, you could use FOOD stamps at places like Strip clubs and tattoo parlors.......

Yes, Frank, Holy CRAP that's insane.  That's a lot of junk food, too, but pay attention next time you're at the super market...there are AISLES dedicated to snack cakes, ice cream, candy bars, and soda...with dozens upon dozens of choices in each aisle.  Now, don't get me wrong, i'm not some health food expert that says "DONT EAT THAT!"  You can eat whatever you want.  As long as YOU are paying for it.

The idea of the Food Stamp program was to provide temporary  relief to those in need to get their DAILY NEEDS of healthy, life sustaining food.  Not Ice Cream and Root Beer for some Root Beer floats.  But it gets even better, the further down you go...

Let's pick one item...let's say a candy bar.  Those are, what, $1.00 at a supermarket (give or take...rounded for simplicity) ...and on that note, did you know that Food Stamp recipients don't pay taxes on their Food Stamp purchases?  That's right.  100% Tax Free.

By federal law, sales tax may not be charged on food purchased with food benefits. If your household purchases food with a combination of food benefits and cash, sales tax may only be charged for taxable items paid with cash.

 But that's for a different day.  So lets get back to our experiment...let's say that just 1/2 of those people buy 1 candy bar a week for an entire year.

23,248,394 (half the people on Food Stamps according to the USDA)
x $1.00 for a candy bar
x 52 (the number of weeks in a year)
_________________________________

$1,208,916,488.00 a year

1.2 BILLION Dollars

Seriously?  1.2 BILLION?  Yes.  That's for ONE half of the people to buy ONE candy bar ONCE a week for ONE year...and this happens all of the time...in fact it happens much more often than you'd think, or wish to believe.  Food Stamps are not buying life sustaining staples any more...they're buying MILK but it's CHOCOLATE milk...food stamps are now being used to buy high fructose corn syrup induced over priced junk food by the CART FULLS

So now that we have a foundation for our experiment...the bottom of the barrel example of 1.2 billion a year, let's take a closer look at the numbers given to us by the USDA....

The AVERAGE Food Stamp recipient gets $132.95 a month (yes, a month)...that's the AVERAGE...not the maximum, no no, the AVERAGE PER PERSON in Food Stamp "benefits", as of May 2012.

So
46,496,788 (the full number of people on food stamps)
x 132.95 (average monthly amount given)
_______________________________________________
6,181,747,964.60 a MONTH

Now, we'll take that times 12 (For a whole year) and get
$74,180,975,575.20 a year!

So lets just round that and call it 74.2 billion dollars...every year.  Now how about comparing that to a few other programs?

Department of Homeland Security - 46.3 billion
Department of Energy - 42.5 billion
N.A.S.A. - 18.2 billion
National Science Foundation - 7.6 Billion
Department of Transportation (Roads..) - 27.0 Billion
Department of Justice - 24.1 Billion

Those are just to name a few...in fact, there is only TWO categories in the federal budget that spend more money than the 74.2 BILLION we spent on FOOD STAMPS ALONE, and those are The Department of Defense and (by the skin of their teeth) the Department of Education.

Government has become Nanny and is giving someone a fish, instead of creating a stable environment in which they can be taught to fish and take care of themselves for the rest of their lives...the worst part is, Government didn't earn the fish that they're giving away for free - no no - Government is STEALING those fish from you and me, and giving it to anyone who says they can't earn it themselves.

What happened?  Why has our nation DOUBLED the Food Stamp program since 2008?  Why has our nation QUADRUPLED the food stamp program since 2000?  I don't know about you, but i'm constantly seeing "Help Wanted" signs in local businesses...from Fast Food to small shops, there ARE people hiring...one just need apply.

Why does the #3 Spending Category in our Federal Budget apply ONLY TO PEOPLE who claim they can't afford to live on their own?  (Now, mind you, there ARE people out there who need this program, but those people, namely the very old or the very disabled, are few and far between compared to the 46 million that currently receive benefits)

Let's not even talk about the other programs that *MOST* Food Stamp Recipients are a part of (Housing "assistance", free internet, free computers, free gasoline, free dress suits, free cell phones, free schooling, free health care (oh, and soon to be, free health INSURANCE unless something drastic happens this November)

If you add all of that up, it's not difficult to imagine exactly why our country is BROKE.  People bitched and complained so much about the big bank bailout...and yes, while that was total horse crap and never should have happened, it PALES in comparison to the government Food Stamp program.  This country is flat broke not because Wal-Mart got a tax break for HIRING MORE PEOPLE.

Not because some wealthy business owner got a tax write off for donating a million dollars to various charities (side note:  Tax write offs are not direct reimbursements!!  Even though many argue that they are)

NO!  Our country is broke because of BAD SPENDING POLICIES from our elected officials, and one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, is the American Food Stamp Program.  It's coddled in soft, fruity language for a reason, because it stinks, and Americans have a hard time swallowing it.

Well...not ALL Americans...

But before I continue, think about this for one second...if you're single with no kids, what would you do if someone GAVE you an extra $130.00 a month?  Or, how about if you're married with no kids...what would you do with an extra $260.00 a month?

Or even better, what if it was you, your spouse, and a child...and you got an extra $390.00 a month in your pocket, every month, for LITERALLY doing NOTHING.  I'll tell ya what you'd do - buy stuff.  Hell, that's what I'd do...or save it to buy something bigger...maybe a new "scary assault rifle" before our President takes them away.

But seriously, think about it for a few seconds, then continue reading, I'll wait.....
...
.....
.......
.........
Done?  Okay, let's continue.

Now let's talk about the indirect purchases that people are making with Food Stamps...and then I believe we'll be getting to the very source of the problem...

Haircuts, Manicures, Pedicures, Vehicles, Name Brand Clothing, Smart Phones, Beer, Liquor, Cigarettes, Weed, (other) Drugs, Xbox, Playstation 3, BluRays, DvDs, Tattoos, iPods, iPads, Computers, Internet (provided the government does already give it to them for free), watches, jewelry, gold "teef" etc...this IS the list that does not end...yes it goes on and on my friend.

And this is the part that gets me the most.  These people are able to afford many of the very things that I CANNOT, yet it is because of my hard work, and yours, that they're able to afford them in the first place.  Let's get one thing out of the way...and when I say "you" it's an understood "you" (I am not talking about YOU, necessarily, the person reading this now)

YOU do NOT have a right to an iPhone
YOU do NOT have a right to get your "hair did"
YOU do NOT have a right to MY MONEY.  Period.  End of discussion.

And this isn't about compassion either.  I consider myself a compassionate person to those in need.  If I want to help out, that's my decision.  But to steal another quote from another one of my favorite entertainers:

Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller

 Food Stamps are NOT compassion.  Food Stamps create dependency on the Government.  End of story.  They're used by politicians on both sides of the aisle to stir the shit pot every 4 years and drive people to the polls to vote in their favor.  Food Stamps aren't going any where...they're going to continue to increase, because what was once Big Brother, has turned into Nanny State, and they're here to tell YOU what is best for YOUR life...after all, they're the Government, they know better than YOU!

And NO, I'm not suggesting that people starve, I'm suggesting that people be put in a situation where they must earn for themselves.  The Elderly and physically/mentally disabled should be the only recipients of something like Food Stamps.  There is simply no checks & balances in our system today, people are allowed to do whatever they want, and when they screw up, they don't have to live with the consequences, because our Government moves in and FORCES us to pay for them.  That is NOT a free society...in fact, while we're on that subject, let's talk about the 10 principals of a FREE society, as stated by the greatest politician of our time, Ron Paul:

1. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.
2. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.
3. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.
4. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.
5. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.
6. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people's money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability.
7. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden.
8. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm.
9. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution.
10. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.

And in the end, this is how Food Stamps hurt people.  It reminds me of a little joke:

The food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever.

Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture,
asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals" because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.

 It gives people the option to do nothing, and after a few generations of this mentality, we are gifted with a nation where 76,000,000 people pay NOTHING in taxes, and have the attitude of "Give me Give me Give me" and with that being said, we arrive at the conclusion of this post, and a posterchild example of the only thing that Government Food Stamps can create..  Enjoy.

Read More

Gun Control Works

Yes, we're seeing a recurring theme in my posts, aren't we?  Well, I'm extremely passionate about my firearms and my legal right to own them...but really that's not what stirs my pot to create all of these posts...what gets me is the disinformation in the media.  Every time I hear a story that is total bull shit...or every time I hear someone in public, or to me specifically, repeat something they've heard, and believe it to be true, it really lights a flame inside of me, one that can only be extinguished once I feel assured I've presented as many facts as possible in hopes of changing a few minds.

So, with that in mind, I start my latest post...Gun Control Works.  That's right.  Gun Control DOES work...but you can only say gun control WORKS when you identify what it is that Gun Control really sets out to do. 

Does Gun Control...seek to save lives?  Well, most advocates of gun control will tell you that, yes, it seeks to save lives...but does it?  If saving lives is the goal, then do they really think that taking a gun away from you, a law abiding citizen, is going to stop the thug down the street from putting a gun in your face?  Do they really believe that taking away 100 round drum magazines, or scary looking black guns is really going to have any impact on "gun violence"?

I would say, no, they don't think that, at least not deep down... I have little faith in the ability of most of these people to evaluate information and form an educated an opinion on anything, let alone what *my* rights are...but I still refuse to accept that they believe that disarming me will save my life...even though that conclusion is easily arrived at based on their rhetoric.

No.  I think it goes much deeper.  If gun control saves lives, then has there yet to be a single example of that happening?  That's right.  Not one.  No place that has ever tried strict gun control, or all out firearm bans, has ever seen a reduced rate in crime...and many places, Chicago, IL for example, have seen that it has quite the opposite effect, and crime rates of all categories, especially murder, through the roof...and on this note, notice what's happening here?  Chicago has, hands down, the strictest gun control laws in the entire country...yet they have some terribly high murder rates...well now, where's the blame on the guns?  

 

These murders were committed with a gun, but how can that be?  Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the whole country..so if gun control saves lives, then how is it possible that these criminals are murdering in record numbers using guns?   ...maybe there's more to it than these politicians and activists are willing to admit.




So what else is it?  What DOES Gun Control aim to do? 

Every time something tragic happens, some nutjob gets on TV and seeks to explain away what happened...the first thing they aim to do is place blame on something tangible...something people can place their collective hate towards and rally for a common goal...the nutjobs goal!

They blame the guns...they blame society, or video games...or they blame the music the person listened to...whatever happened to that, by the way?  Did the music haters get bored?  Or did they just finally accept the fact that Marilyn Manson and ICP don't make kids violent?  (My guess is they just got fat and lazy and gave up...)

What they're really doing is making themselves feel good.  That's all this is really about.  It's like the people who drive a Prius, or who think that clicking "like" on a facebook post is actually going to send money to starving children in a foreign country...or the people who obsess over recycling

If one wants to do these things because they make them FEEL BETTER about themselves, fine, no judgement be upon them, but they should at least be honest that this is why they're doing them, and don't feel obligated to look down their noses at someone who thinks it's a complete waste of time.

These people honestly believe that if you have good intentions, and feel good about something, then everything else will fall into place effortlessly.  Obviously they don't really believe in reality or taking action, but they subscribe to the idea that if you say something, it just might come true...even if there's a metric shit-ton of information to prove that it's not...  (These are the same kinds of people who get pissed off at comedians for joking about 9/11 or rape)

"Gun Control" works for these people because it makes Gun Control Advocates feel good and that's all they're after in the first place.  It's a lazy minded answer to a question "How do we reduce crime".  If these people really cared about reducing crime, they'd attack it at its source, the Justice System and how relaxed on criminals and repeat offenders we have become as a nation.  There simply is no incentive to NOT commit crime these days.

But in the end, these people don't have to rationalize Gun Control to themselves, because their limited world view tells them that they're not wrong, they've never put themselves in a situation to be proven wrong, therefore they spend their time feeling as though they're right.  YOU are wrong.  They don't need statistics or facts, to them, it just feels good...and you can't argue with something that makes someone feel good...just ask that meth head on the corner begging for your change on your way to work every morning...he knew ahead of time that Meth wasn't really good for anyone...he knew what it'd to do his body, or at the very least, he didn't think it'd be good for him, but it made him FEEL GOOD, so he shot it in his arm anyways.

The only difference between the two is that the meth head isn't infringing on another persons right out of abject stupidity and ignorance.  He's only screwing up his own life with a product that is 100% banned by the United States Government...ya know?  Drug Control...uh oh...another fact...I guess we'd better end there...

Read More

The United Nations Disarm Treaty

Today I awoke to some great headlines on the forums.  This headline reached some of my favorite forums faster than places like Drudge Report, CNN, and Fox News, etc...  Headline:

U.S. backs away from supporting global arms trade treaty

 

"This is GREAT" I thought to myself, lying in bed on my iPhone reading the news of the world that passed me by in my sleep.  I knew that The Obama Administration was going to shy away from this bill, but I never thought they'd back away completely.  This was amazing...almost as shocking to me as The House voting in overwhelming support for a bill written by none other than the greatest politician of our time, Ron Paul, to Audit The Fed.

Eagerly I began reading through the article, ready for the juicy details of how it went down, and how those imbeciles at the United Nations would handle it.  But, to my ultimate dismay, as I neared the end of the article, I read this:

"The United States told delegates that it did not have "core" objections to the draft treaty under consideration, but that it needed more time."

 

 Amazing.  I think it's safe to say that we've all heard the expression "If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is" ... my oh my how fitting.

So, The Obama Administration does not disagree with the Disarm Treaty, but wants to postpone signing it...maybe until AFTER the election?  Apparently so, since it's a 6 month postponement that has been requested.

Now, of course, this speculation is all over the airwaves, i'm not the first to think about it, though it was the first thing that entered my mind upon reading the above quoted statement.

And, of course, the opposition blasts that ideal and calls it more delusional paranoia.  Really?  Well, the definition is paranoia is:

Suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification.

  So in order for their statements to technically be true, there'd have to be no reason for any of us to think that Obama is merely delaying.  It'd have to be completely conjured in our heads having no event prior to today to lead us to believe he'd ever delay anything in favor of re-election, right?  Right.  Good, I'm glad we agree.  So let's listen to this

Huh.  Well, I guess so much for the "you're just paranoid" routine.  Could we be WRONG?  Yes.  Certainly.  That's possible.  It's possible that we could be misinterpreting Obama's request for a 6 month waiting period.  It's possible that we could be misinterpreting his statement of "We don't disagree with the treaty, we just need more time".  Sure, that's possible.  Hell, just about anything is possible these days, however...given the history of the Obama Administration to say one thing and do another, I'm leaning towards the "We're not paranoid" angle.

But really, we could debate the true intentions of Obama until the cows come home.  Maybe he has another reason for waiting until after the Election to sign the treaty?  Maybe.  So, until such a time, provided he actually does get re-elected, it's sort of a moot point.

Our time is better spent seeing what's in the Treaty its self, and trying to figure out why many of us subscribe to the idea that Obama is afraid of voting booth reprisals and is choosing to wait until after the election with the hopes of getting re-elected.

So, let's take a look at the treaty its self

Holy shit, that's a lot to read!  Well, it has to be when writing law.  You have to define everything, define everyone, close off any loopholes possible, etc, etc...the idea of something like this is to leave no wiggle room for someone to come along, go against the spirit of the treaty, but still stay within the legal confines of said treaty (aka exploit a loophole)

But it is with this all in mind that most of us have taken up arms against this treaty, and why I choose to call it the "Disarm Treaty" ... because that's exactly what it CAN BE used for.  "How?" you might be asking...well, I'll show you, from the treaty its self:

It empowers Dictatorships that belong to the United Nations
All members of the United Nations are treated equally where treaties are concerned.  So in the case of this Treaty, country's with controversial dictators like Iran and Venezuela will have arms restrictions lifted to become level with trusted country's like Japan, for obvious reasons, this is a bad idea.

The United Nations has already been criticized for appointing Iran to a key role in the talks, even as Tehran stands accused by the UN of arming Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s bloody crackdown on rebels...and who in their right minds would trust Iran to decide what is best for the rest of us?


Shady Language
This treaty uses a lot of loose language and fails to tie up many ends, leaving its contents to be subject to interpretation.  What do I mean by that?  Well, before we take a look at that, let's get 3 things out of the way

1.) None of us are saying that we believe the UN can march into our living rooms and take our guns.  That's never been said, suggested, thought, or hinted at.  No external power, and certainly not the U.N., can disarm U.S. citizens or deprive us of our Second Amendment rights by force. If there is a threat to the Second Amendment, then it can only come directly from The United States Government.

2.) The United States is one of the few nations in the world that has something like The Second Amendment.

3.) The United Nations, and many of its members, are vehemently against the idea of Civilians being allowed to legally possess firearms.

 So what about that "Shady Language"  Well, lets look

Transfer requirements.  Whether by design, or sheer abject stupidity, the treaty fails to have a concise definition for what it considers to be a transfer of firearms.  For example, the Treaty states that it will apply to “all international transfers of conventional arms” but then defines international transfers as the transfer of title or control over the conventional arms.

Does this mean that domestic transfers count as international and are then subject to the treaty's provisions?  There is other speculation to the possibility of the creation of a UN based global gun registry.

So, as I said, nobody thinks this treaty is designed to move into your home, directly, and grab your guns, but with the loose language, combined with leadership from country's like Iran, and the known history of the disdain for Civilian Ownership by the United Nations, it's easy to see how this shady language could be used in the future to circumvent the Second Amendment...in other words, if this Treaty is signed and ratified, then further own down the road, the Second Amendment may come in 2nd place in order to comply with the demands of the treaty its self.  This chance of this happening can never be allowed to see the light of day.


Many Obama supporters keep reminding us all that in order for a treaty to be ratified, it must pass with a 2/3's approval from The Senate...they keep spouting this off as if it's the end-all answer to the problem.  But it's not.  Nobody is arguing that this part isn't true.  It does take 2/3's majority to pass it.  That doesn't mean it can't be passed!  Certainly, the climate in the Senate right now means there's no way the Senate would ever vote in such a manner...but if history has shown us anything, it's that those in power are quick to change when they have something to lose.

For now, however, we have a few leaders in the Government who are willing to stand up to such unneeded disarmament of American Citizens.  Leaders like Jerry Moran who introduced S.2205.IS dubbed The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act.  This Act seeks to block funding thereby preventing the Obama Administration from negotiating ANY Arms Trade Treaty that violates the Second Amendment (Disarming American Citizens)

 

 Mr. Moran argued that any treaty that allows international bodies to regulate civilian firearms could end up letting those institutions "restrict the lawful and private ownership of firearms in our country."  The Senate may not appear likely to support such a mesure, but good Americans like Mr. Moran were smart enough to plan ahead and introduce legislation in attempts to forbid the Obama Administration from negotiating with our rights.

As we approach the end of this post, I am borrowing a passage from The Heritage Foundation (already cited above)

 In 2010, Mexico, speaking for eight other Central and South American nations, stated its view that “internal transfers which...might have an impact on other States should also be part of an ATT.” Since any firearm transfer—meaning any change in the ownership of a firearm—might conceivably somehow affect another nation, an ATT based on this provision would appear to require far-reaching domestic controls.

The draft paper is narrower and nominally applies only to “international arms transfers,” but in its Annex A, it defines such transfers as including “transport” across national territory, and notes that states should “monitor and control” arms in transit. It also requires nations to “enforce domestically the obligations of this treaty” by prohibiting the unauthorized “transfer of arms from any location” under its control. If applied to hunting and sporting weapons, this could be a major expansion of federal firearms controls.
Finally, the draft paper requires that nations “shall take all appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of exported arms into the illicit market or to unintended end users.” This clause can be interpreted in many ways.

The U.S. cannot prevent the diversion of arms that have already been exported and have therefore left its jurisdiction. This requirement therefore appears to create an obligation to impose undefined but extensive internal controls, as these controls are supposed to include “all appropriate measures.”

So to put it in the simplest terms, lets close this argument with this idea.

Let's pretend you live in a bad neighborhood.  One known for all kinds of crime.  Your neighbors house was broken into last week, and Larry, down the street, shot at 2 intruders last night, scaring them off, but they still got away.  The police hold City Watches where all of your neighborhood is invited, and they give you tips and updates on the crime in your area...yes, this are THAT bad.

So, when you leave for work in the morning, do you lock your doors?  Of course!  Why risk it, right?  Chances are that a criminal will not seek out YOUR house...you don't stand out, you blend in perfectly to the other dozens of houses in the area and you have a house alarm with your ADT sticker in the window...but, you still lock your door anyways, right?  Why risk it?

This UN treaty is no different.  To sign it, as a nation, we are leaving our doors unlocked in a bad neighborhood and trusting that someone in the future won't break in and rob us blind.

Read More

Quick Stats

According to the CDC, in 2009, 24,518 people died from alcohol.  This number does not reflect suicide, accidents, or homicides committed under the influence of alcohol...and according to the CDC, 443,000 die every year from smoking cigarettes.

Compare that to the same year, and the FBI Crime Statistics, we see that 9,146 deaths that year were by firearm.  This is all deaths.  Remember how the alcohol report from the CDC excludes accidents, homicides, and suicide?  Hmm.....

So what am I trying to say with all of this?  That I think Smoking & Alcohol should be banned?  No.  Of course not.  But it is quite simple, anti-gun activists are telling the country one thing, but the numbers outlined above say something completely different.

The problem with people like The Brady Campaign is that they believe guns are responsible for Crime and Society is responsible for the Criminal.  They do not believe in individual responsibility. 

To them, something is always someone elses fault, so they can't have a solid seat in reality.  That's why they create numbers to make their rhetoric look flashy...that's why they don't link to real studies done on the relationship in gun violence and gun ownership...and the one time they do (reference a recent Australian Crime report) they point to "gun crimes" and say "See?  Less guns equal less gun crime" but they neglect to mention the soaring numbers in every other category like Rape, Murder w/ something other than a gun, robbery, and assault.

Ya know what, though?  Someone else has already done a lot of the number crunching for us.  And unlike entities like the Brady Campaign, they actually cite their sources and back it up with raw information for you to make your own decisions.

Click Here to see it for yourself

"Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.

Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:
States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;  If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.

Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award.""

Read More